Football: Kane is coming home

[Padraig]

In fairness to Morocco and Croatia, there wasn't much in it between Morocco and Portugal in the first half.  I would even say that Morocco deserved to lead.  It was only after Morocco scored that they went full on defensive.  And Croatia weren't that defensive either but Brazil did eventually push them back (which may be partly due to Modric's age).

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Idk, England was more dangerous when the teams were 0-0

Hmm.  Hadn't seen that before.  I thought it was accepted that France looked on top until they scored and then England took over.  That in itself wasn't that bad for France.  But France failing to do much in that long period from 1-0 to 1-1 isn't a great sign for France.

[baxus]

21 hours ago, ljkeane said:

The better team frequently don't finish their chances. Football's a low scoring sport which does allow weaker teams to often win. We've all seen teams park the bus then flukily shin one in at the other end and somehow come away with a win, doesn't make them the better team.

Absolutely. That's why chance creation is a better measure of quality than just goals scored.

The beauty of sport is that there are clear rules to determine who the better athlete/team is. There's a scoring system and it's the same for everyone and who scores higher is the better athlete/team. The only way for that to not be true is if the referee(s) obviously and/or maliciously help one athlete/team to win.

In football, you have one criterium - put the ball in the back of the net. That's it. There's no "artistic impression" in football, you don't get one point for every X shots on target or for every 10% possession more than your opponent or whatever.

If a team "parks the bus" and relies on the counters and they manage to succeed at it, that certainly does make them a better team than the team that tries to attack for 90 minutes and fails to do so. Attacking play does not equal quality of the team. Defense is a huge aspect of the game.

20 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

No, and stop making this one thing so unique and special compared to everything else. You can train to play pool for thousands of hours and sometimes you hit a perfect shot and the ball still doesn't go in. Everything at every level of sport still requires a bit of luck.

How do you hit a perfect shot and the ball doesn't go in when the whole point of the shot is to make the ball go in?

There is "luck" in football when we talk about the ball deflecting perfectly for a striker to score or something like that. Still, scoring from that position is down to skill and not luck.

[Spockydog]

*woo-woo klaxon*

There is no such thing as luck.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

How do you hit a perfect shot and the ball doesn't go in when the whole point of the shot is to make the ball go in?

There is "luck" in football when we talk about the ball deflecting perfectly for a striker to score or something like that. Still, scoring from that position is down to skill and not luck.

It's skill and luck. You can hit a perfect shot and the goalie can get a finger on it still. Or like you said, Messi can completely miss hit his shot and somehow it goes in like it did a few matches back. Luck plays a role in sports just like it does in every facet of life. 

[Heartofice]

I think it's not really a good thing to be talking about luck in football. Of course there is an element of that but at the same time a lot of it is really probability and the point is try and engineer situations in which you are more probable to score or not concede. 

That's why we have seen a proliferation of data in football as teams try to create footballing systems that make the most benefit out of higher probability situations, why you have something like XG which measures the likelihood of a shot going in. Thats why teams spend so much time either trying to create situations with a higher probability of scoring or preventing the other side from doing the same. 

Like going back to France v England, yes if England had taken their chances then they would have won.. but then England didn't really have very many good quality chances, and that is a product of France preventing them from creating them. 

So what I'm saying is you make your own luck, if you are relying on a 1000-1 chance shot to win a game then you are doing something wrong.

[Consigliere]

[Padraig]

21 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

but at the same time a lot of it is really probability

Yes.  Definitely this.

I might have a 0.1% chance of scoring a penalty against a professional goalie but if that very rare game eventually comes along, i'm going to score and look brilliant.  The "luck" element is why this game over the other 999 other attempts.

Same as a player scoring from long range.  However skillful a player is, 8 times out of 10, a player may not score from distance (say).  But every so often, the player will nail it.  Tchouameni would probably miss the next time a similar play arose.  For his sake, it may be an unimportant league game and not the World Cup final.  That's why we end up talking about luck.  But of course, if he wasn't skillful, he would be missing 999 times out of 1000 (or ever more).  Its all tied together.

Morocco beat Portugal but you can only really say they are a better team if they played each other 10 times (or more) and counted who won more often.   Morocco could win only 20% of the time but if that 10% is represented by last Saturday, then they are fortunate that it happened then.  That's why football is so frustrating and captivating (and why a league system is a much better judge of quality than a knock out).  Better teams can easily lose.  They remain a better team though.

But even then, it may seem that Portugal is a better team but if stakes are involved (like a World Cup knock out match), Morocco may more often win those kind of games.  It can raise its game when it really matters...

[Mark Antony]

Southgate the fraud 

[Corvinus85]

1 hour ago, Heartofice said:

Like going back to France v England, yes if England had taken their chances then they would have won.. but then England didn't really have very many good quality chances, and that is a product of France preventing them from creating them. 

Kane was clearly fouled at the edge of the penalty box early in the first half. The ref didn't call it, but VAR knew it was a foul but only looked to see if it was in a box. No free kick given. A chance taken away by the ref. And that's only one example.

Now granted, the big miss is the 2nd penalty, and Southgate making boneheaded substitutions. There are quite a few factors here why England lost this game. I just don't think it came to the better team won.

[Heartofice]

8 minutes ago, Corvinus85 said:

Kane was clearly fouled at the edge of the penalty box early in the first half. The ref didn't call it, but VAR knew it was a foul but only looked to see if it was in a box. No free kick given. A chance taken away by the ref. And that's only one example.

Now granted, the big miss is the 2nd penalty, and Southgate making boneheaded substitutions. There are quite a few factors here why England lost this game. I just don't think it came to the better team won.

Sure the ref was rubbish and we would have equalised if Kane had gotten that second pen. My point is that overall I do think France restricted us to poor quality chances and our ability to score was mostly based on us falling over in the right areas. 

I think England and France play in a very similar way, but I also think that France are just better at it and able to capitalise on the fewer number of opportunities they create in a way that England really are not. That in the end is why we lost. 

[ants]

On 12/12/2022 at 2:10 AM, Lord of Oop North said:

If you hit a perfect shot and it doesn't go in, that isn't a perfect shot at all. The perfect shot goes in. If it was stopped, that just means you were beat - whether it be by the keeper, the defense or yourself.

If it worked like you're describing, Tchouameni would be scoring goals like that every game. In fact, why wouldn't he be scoring multiple goals like that every game? And the reason he doesn't is because there isn't a consistency of result like you're suggesting. Even for the best players. They have a narrower scope of outcomes than a poorer quality player, but even then they need things to go their way. Winning consistently is about creating opportunities where you have a larger probability of a successful result and then capitalising, and creating more opportunities, while reducing opportunities and the quality of those opportunities for the opposition.

But still with a range of possible outcomes and odds stacked against the attack in any play, any one play can produce a result. Hell, look at Australia's goal vs. Argentina. 

And given it was almost certainly a foul on Saka before France broke for the play that led to the first goal, arguing luck doesn't come into it is a little ridiculous. 

[Lord of Oop North]

47 minutes ago, ants said:

If it worked like you're describing, Tchouameni would be scoring goals like that every game. In fact, why wouldn't he be scoring multiple goals like that every game? And the reason he doesn't is because there isn't a consistency of result like you're suggesting. Even for the best players. They have a narrower scope of outcomes than a poorer quality player, but even then they need things to go their way. Winning consistently is about creating opportunities where you have a larger probability of a successful result and then capitalising, and creating more opportunities, while reducing opportunities and the quality of those opportunities for the opposition.

Of course they need things to go their way, but that isn't really luck. Part of all the training that happens is about players learning to put themselves into the situations where the probability of their success is best. If those outcomes don't work, it usually isn't down to "luck". It is generally because the opposition has prevented their success. Defenders are putting themselves into positions, and making moves, to lower the probability of the offenses' success. When that defense works, that isn't luck - that is the result of their training and quality.

Tchouameni's goal likely had a really low xG. But in that situation, the player rightly saw that the defense was open and Pickford was in a poor position -  so he took his chance, and it worked. That isn't luck, that is a smart move. 

The refereeing part is a bit different, and I agree that blown calls going your way is more or less luck (unless you are Juventus).

[ants]

Saying things "need things to go their way" and based on probabilities is fundamentally saying luck is involved. The probabilities only stop involving luck when there are so many samples that they should revert to the mean. Which clearly doesn't happen in a single game of football. 

[Lord of Oop North]

52 minutes ago, ants said:

Saying things "need things to go their way" and based on probabilities is fundamentally saying luck is involved. The probabilities only stop involving luck when there are so many samples that they should revert to the mean. Which clearly doesn't happen in a single game of football. 

First of all, let me just say that I simply do not believe in luck. I grew up a Catholic, so when I think of Luck, I mostly think of deterministic philosophy, and all the superstitious nonsense that entails. The other thing I think about are games of chance that I involve zero skill to win - that is luck. 

Football isn't a game of chance. The results are governed by skills. They are not gained through 'luck', unless we want to talk about refereeing and those bad decisions that affect the course of the game. This is true for most sports that I can think of.

Teams train their players so that they can learn to make the best decisions that lead to the highest outcomes. So when they have made a good decision - whatever that may be, I do not ascribe that to luck. To me, that is skill. It is a direct result of thousands of hours of hard work. 

Footballers at the top pro levels aren't running around and taking shots, hoping they get lucky. Defenders aren't standing around, hoping they luckily block shots. Players aren't hoping they are in the right place at the right time to make these good plays - they are putting themselves into that position. That is not luck, that is skill.

When a footballer takes a shot - in that moment, they aren't shooting because they think they have no shot and might get lucky. Not at the highest levels anyway. In that split second, the player has decided they can score. If they are a good player, they would not shoot otherwise and would make a better decision. Their decision might be wrong, of course, but that is why  intelligence separates the top level footballers from the rest.

This was long and perhaps rambling, but the original point that I disagreed was that England got unlucky, despite playing better than France. I still disagree. If England played better, they would have won. Yes, England was on the wrong side of the referee on a key call, but they also had many chances that France neutralized over and over. France perhaps had less chances overall, but they had good ones. Giroud had four big moments in the box, and sure enough he got one in. The better team shouldn't let that happen.

Too often we use luck as a crutch to excuses failures of our own making.

 

 

[baxus]

19 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's skill and luck. You can hit a perfect shot and the goalie can get a finger on it still.

If a keeper gets a finger on it still, then that's not bad luck for you or good luck for him, but it's his skill that beat you or maybe you should've taken a shot at a different part of the goal but then it wouldn't really be a perfect shot.

Regarding probability and luck, they are not related in this case. It's like basketball players shooting free throws - there's a probability they would score but whether they do or not is down to skill, not luck.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, baxus said:

If a keeper gets a finger on it still, then that's not bad luck for you or good luck for him, but it's his skill that beat you or maybe you should've taken a shot at a different part of the goal but then it wouldn't really be a perfect shot.

Regarding probability and luck, they are not related in this case. It's like basketball players shooting free throws - there's a probability they would score but whether they do or not is down to skill, not luck.

Again, it's both. Chris Bosh is a great rebounder, but he also needed some luck for the ball to bounce his way in game 6 of the 2013 Finals and Ray Allen needed a bit of luck to hit a crazy desperation three to save the game. That's not said to diminish their incredible skills, but a recognition that if the ball bounces slightly differently the Heat almost assuredly lose that game and the Championship. And then in game 7 Tim Duncan had some terrible luck, missing a point blank shot very late in the game despite being regarded as the most technically sound big man of his era, maybe ever. Luck plays a role in every sport.
 

[Spockydog]

The way a ball bounces off the post is just physics. That's it. There is no such thing as luck.

You may as well talk about Santa Claus coming on for the Tooth Fairy in the last ten minutes and scoring a screamer from sixty yards.

Perhaps lay off the phlogiston for a bit, eh? 

[Consigliere]

Reports that Fernando Santos is set to leave the Portuguese NT. The federation are seeking a termination by mutual consent, however contractual complexities could delay the process. Reportedly the Portuguese Football Federation's contract is with Femacosa -- a company set up by Fernando Santos in order to take advantage of a loophole to avoid/evade taxes -- to provide services to the NT rather than directly with Santos himself. Femacosa is currently under investigation by the Portuguese tax authorities.

 

If Santos does leave, then the Portuguese Football Federation should go all out to get Mourinho in. I think he'd make a great NT manager. His prickly/toxic nature, which tends to alienate players after a while, would be much less of an issue managing a NT. He's still a good tactician and his more conservative approach would be well suited to internationals, and he has a very good record in knockout football.

[AncalagonTheBlack]

Deadpool vs Killmonger! 

https://theathletic.com/3997432/2022/12/13/bill-foley-bournemouth-takeover-knights/

Quote

There are also minority investors in the new ownership structure involved in the club, which includes award-winning Hollywood actor Michael B. Jordan. The investment being Jordan’s first foray into professional sports ownership.

 

[Consigliere]